Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/September 11 attacks

Where's the dispute?
The long lasting dispute is at the ever burning yet never turning 9/11 attacks article.

Talk:September 11 attacks.

What's the dispute?
Many years have passed since I've start to watch 9/11 article and 'behind the scene' issues surrounding it. At this point in time I have little or no doubt that group of editors involved there have hijacked the place for their own "amusement". Although such 'inside' knowledge affects my approach to discussion, I'd say that we have persistent and consistent history in which some of our basic guidelines are broken regularly. With regards to conduct, we have utter lack of good faith, which in turn quickly becomes breeding ground for (mutual) personal attacks, deficiency of politeness and shortcoming of welcoming that has become so obvious that very few people decides to join the discussion at the article which is fuelling vigorous discussions everywhere. I can go back to 2006 and reference what I've wrote above over and over again. I can also point to many editors who were blocked indefinitely or who lost their editing privileges because of this group. In wiki terms, we're dealing with the editors who are 'gaming the system'.

Not to venture on sideways, I'll just point out that same editors, and I'm talking about the editors which hold that page hostage for many years now, are constantly giving same reasons for exclusion of POV tag thus preserving their own POV. Naturally, this wouldn't be an issue if we wouldn't talk about the people which are already under scrutiny of adminship because of their behavorism. We have now succumb to very few of them, as Mongo and Aude or that conspiracy nut Morton went into hiding. Nevertheless this remnants are remnants of the same group. Peter or Harrison had been there and done that for as long one can remember. To be honest, personally I wouldn't even try to edit there if this history wouldn't be so painfully known to me.

Now, to keep this short so one may learn what follows, the inclusion of that tag was brought up repeatedly, history of the article shows that we had numerous editors who asked for it. All of these requests were turned down by the same cabal, and the pattern in which the lack of arguments and insults and blocks were deployed is easy to prove.

In the end, I am aware of my own misconduct and I'd hope it is understandable, at this point in time it has become ridiculous to watch this unfold, at this point in time I'll restrain from more sinister allegations, but I'm ready to push this through as far as necessary.

Down the wabbit hole
Stage is set, editor comes lurking in puzzled by the state of the article and all the doubt he seen around the web.

Editor asks: Why we don't have opinion polls included in the article, these opinion polls are carried by mainstream and significant in many ways.

Member of cabal answers: We don't need your conspiracy theories.

I find it remarkable, but I'll let you folks be the judge of that.

Comment
The user that submitted this has been identified as a previously banned editor...User:DawnisuponUS. The hope is that someday, those you believe that Wikipedia exists partly to promote nonsense will find a new hobby.--MONGO 20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. Case closed. Steve Crossin   Talk/24 21:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)